ORDER M. VENUGOPAL, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ of certiorari in calling for the records of the fourth respondent in O.A. No. 843 of 2008, dated 19.8.2009, and to quash the same. The petitioner has also consequently prayed for reinstating him in service by issuance of appropriate directions to the 1 to 3 respondents to pay him back wages etc. 2. The petitioner/applicant was working as a Parcel Porter and he unauthorisedly absented from attending duties. Therefore, the first respondent issued with a charge memo, dated 30.1.2001 alleging that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for the period from 22.5.2000 to 1.12.2000 without prior approval/sanction from the competent authority or following the Railway Medical Attendance Rules and thereby violated Rule 3(1)(ii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules, 1966, 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an Enquiry Officer was appointed as per Rule 9 of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, to conduct an enquiry for imposing major penalty. The Enquiry Officer, on completion of the enquiry, submitted his report dated 28.9.2001 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. 4. It is also the case of the petitioner that a copy of the enquiry report was issued to the writ petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority through a letter dated 4.10.2001 requiring him to furnish his reply on the finding of the Enquiry Officer. But he had not responded to the Disciplinary Authority‘s letter dated 4.10.2001. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was perforced to pass the impugned order dated 27.12.2001 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner from railway service with effect from 1.1.2002 Forenoon. 5. It is to be noted that the petitioner, aggrieved against the imposition of compulsory retirement from railway service, filed an Appeal on 4.8.2005. The Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on 8.2.2006. Later, a Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner/applicant before the Third Respondent/Chief Commercial Manager, Headquarters Office, Chennai, and the same was dismissed resulting in the punishment of compulsory retirement being upheld. 6. The petitioner, on being dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement, filed O.A. No. 843 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, as per its impugned order dated 19.8.2009, had dismissed the Original Application inter alia holding that it did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner/applicant challenging the impugned orders. 7. The petitioner, on being dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement, filed O.A. No. 843 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal, as per its impugned order dated 19.8.2009, had dismissed the Original Application inter alia holding that it did not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner/applicant challenging the impugned orders. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order passed by the Fourth Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant submits that the petitioner is only projecting a plea of proportionality of punishment being imposed upon him. According to him, the punishment of compulsorily retirement from railway service, as found by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the various Authorities, is an excessive one, besides the same being extremely on the higher side. 9. The Learned counsel for the petitioner also urges before this Court that the petitioner has a family and therefore, some leniency may be shown on him. 10. On going through the available materials on record in the present case in hand, we are of the considered view that the petitioner/applicant had unauthorisedly absented himself from -duty for the period from 22.5.2000 to 1.12.2000 without prior sanction from the competent authority. An enquiry was held against him by an Enquiry Officer and in the domestic enquiry, the charge levelled against him was found to be proved as per the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 28.9.2001. Aggrieved against the findings of the Disciplinary Authority, he preferred in appeal before the Appellate Authority, which also ended in dismissal. Subsequently, he filed a revision before the third respondent and that was dismissed on 12.4.2008. 11. It is evident that the petitioner even on 21.3.2001 had attended the enquiry and prayed for time to engage a Defence Assistant by furnishing a letter dated 6.4.2001. On the next date of hearing on 11.4.2001 and 10.5.2001, the enquiry could not be held due to Railway Week Celebration and General Election. Thereafter, a sitting was held on 29.6.2001 and on 9.8.2001, and on these dates, the petitioner had not turned up. Only his Defence Assistant, Francis Michael attended. More over, it appears that the petitioner had not given any information to his Defence Assistant who attended the enquiry on two occasions. Thereafter, a sitting was held on 29.6.2001 and on 9.8.2001, and on these dates, the petitioner had not turned up. Only his Defence Assistant, Francis Michael attended. More over, it appears that the petitioner had not given any information to his Defence Assistant who attended the enquiry on two occasions. Therefore, an Ex parte Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer, who examined the official witnesses and based on the evidence available on record, he submitted his findings against the petitioner/applicant. 12. On going through the entire gamut of the material and also an over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner, we are of the considered view that the petitioner/applicant had not made out any case warranting any interference in the hands of this Court to set aside the order passed by the Fourth Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 843 of 2008. 13. Per contra, we are of the considered view that the petitioner/applicant, for his unauthorised absence from duty for the period from 22.5.2000 to 1.12.2000, was found guilty of the charge and rightly the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was ordered by the Appropriate Authority. 14. Also, the petitioner in the revision petition before the Revisional Authority had taken a different stand by stating that his non-attendance during the enquiry was because of his illness and of cut throat conspiracy by a gang of unsocial elements of the locality which brought pressure to bear on him to sell his ancestral house and took away the entire amount. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he was disallowed/prevented from attending the enquiry with any justified reasons. This contradictory plea of the petitioner will not hold good for the simple reason that the petitioner/applicant was provided with an adequate and reasonable opportunity by the authority, who conducted the Disciplinary Proceedings and therefore, he could not complain of negation of the principles of natural justice. 15. Be that as it may, looking at from any angle, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Connected M.P.s are closed. No costs. Petition dismissed.